History of Baptisim

[heapshake]

I'm not sure if this is the right forum for this or not, but I'm wondering where baptism came from? When John started baptizing people was this some new thing or were the people already familiar with the concept? When John started preaching and baptizing would the people have been freaked out (I can't think of a better term) by a guy dunking people (or whatever the method was) for religious purposes or was it something others had done before?

 

[a_ntv]

A very good question that I try to answer

The jews knew the use of washing in water for purification.

The jews had a very stron idea of purity/umpurity: some actions made the man unpure (like to stay near corpes, to eat unpure food, to born a childen, to work on saturday and so on: it was the Law)

The Law had lots of rule for gain again the state of purity, depending on the gravity of the unpureness: the main were: waiting the sun set (for light unpurity), to wash (for medium unpurity), to offer sacrifices (for heavy unpurity).

There were many pools in Jerusalem, most of them used for purification before to enter in the temple.
In the very inner part of the temple there was a pool for the priests.

Baptism for the Jews had the meaning of wash for purity.
John the Baptist moved this meaning from purity to repentance. Jesus followed John teaching that the idea of pure/unpure (looking at the Law) shall be substituted by the idea of sin/saint (looking at the love).

Acts 19:4 And Paul said, "John baptized with the baptism of repentance, telling the people to believe in the one who was to come after him, that is, Jesus.

Here a link to wash practice in Judaism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikvah

 

[heapshake]

Thanks for the information

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

I'm not sure if this is the right forum for this or not, but I'm wondering where baptism came from? When John started baptizing people was this some new thing or were the people already familiar with the concept? When John started preaching and baptizing would the people have been freaked out (I can't think of a better term) by a guy dunking people (or whatever the method was) for religious purposes or was it something others had done before?

per 'whatever the method'.

a simple search discovers that baptizo always meant immerse - fully cover. i was raised 110percent Lutheran, an they(mostly) claim otherwise, but they really squirm ackwardly when the truth is brought up in class, and they have to use 'man''s' reasoning to defend their practices.
later it was transliterated in english INSTEAD OF TRANSLATED.
that way, enough confusion resulted for whatever.
(sometime after 1400a.d. or so, someone claimed baptizo could mean other than immersed, but before that, it always meant immersed)

 

[PolycarpII]

I'm not sure if this is the right forum for this or not, but I'm wondering where baptism came from? When John started baptizing people was this some new thing or were the people already familiar with the concept? When John started preaching and baptizing would the people have been freaked out (I can't think of a better term) by a guy dunking people (or whatever the method was) for religious purposes or was it something others had done before?

Baptism most probably had it origin in the Jewish mikvah which is the ceremonial washing that makes a convert Jewish. This came from, most probably, the Zoroastrians which was the dominate religion of the Persians. Taking the priciple meaning of washing and purfication the Christians would take the idea of Baptism and raise it to transcendant levels.

So, in short, Baptism was adopted by the jews and Christians from the Zoroastrians.

Allen

 

[PolycarpII]

per 'whatever the method'.

a simple search discovers that baptizo always meant immerse - fully cover. i was raised 110percent Lutheran, an they(mostly) claim otherwise, but they really squirm ackwardly when the truth is brought up in class, and they have to use 'man''s' reasoning to defend their practices.
later it was transliterated in english INSTEAD OF TRANSLATED.
that way, enough confusion resulted for whatever.
(sometime after 1400a.d. or so, someone claimed baptizo could mean other than immersed, but before that, it always meant immersed)

In most Churches immersion is the official form of Baptism, though they might practice another form. In the Catholic Tradition we practice all three: immersion is generally reserved for converts, infusion (pouring) for infants, and aspersion (sprinkling) for those unbaptized in danger of death. The point is that it is never says, in the Scriptures, how Baptism in most properly performed. Most Christian Churches believe that what is important is the Water coupled with the Word, with enough water that it gets the point across.

Allen

 

[BelindaP]

Baptizo actually means to 'come into contact with a liquid.' If you read the secular literature in Greek around Biblical times, there are references to being 'baptized into Bacchus' by getting very drunk on wine. Also in the literature, there were various ways to be 'baptized', which often meant getting wet.

As far as church practice goes, however, the practice up to the Great Schism was to baptize by immersion. This goes to the Jewish practice of taking ritual baths for purification in which total immersion was required. Many Orthodox and Conservative Jews still continue the practice. It should be noted, however, when reading the Jewish laws around purification in Leviticus, it is specified only that the supplicant bathe and wash his/her clothes. Immersion was not required but added by tradition. There are also many ordinances that required purification by being sprinkled rather than being bathed.

In the time of John the Baptist, there were many Jewish teachers and rabbis the instituted a ritual bath as a way for their followers to indicate that they had changed their ways and purified themselves. That is why John the Baptist's baptism was not considered to be a valid Christian baptism, because he was not baptizing in the name of the Holy Trinity, but rather having people indicate that they were going to change their ways.

Since baptism is an act of obedience, what is required is that a person be baptized in a way that suits his/her conscience and traditions. If a person does not believe in his/her heart that he/she has been truly baptized, then, after careful reflection, he/she should have it done in a way that will resolve the conflict in their mind.

By the way, many Lutheran pastors will baptize by immersion if you request it.

 

[SolomonVII]

Some think that in his baptism in the river Jordan, what John was doing was re-enacting the sacred history of Israel, when the intiates into the Baptism enter through the River Jordan into the Promised Land. Purification according to Jewish traditions was one certainly one aspect of the baptism , but there was something revolutionary happening as well. Joshua's new army was again preparing to storm the Holy Land across the River Jordan, and establish the new, incorruptible Kingdom of Israel.
And significantly, it was at his Baptism that God proclaims Jesus as the new "Jeshua" who it pleased God very much to head this new army of God's people into the New Kindgom.

 

[BigNorsk]

per 'whatever the method'.

a simple search discovers that baptizo always meant immerse - fully cover. i was raised 110percent Lutheran, an they(mostly) claim otherwise, but they really squirm ackwardly when the truth is brought up in class, and they have to use 'man''s' reasoning to defend their practices.
later it was transliterated in english INSTEAD OF TRANSLATED.
that way, enough confusion resulted for whatever.
(sometime after 1400a.d. or so, someone claimed baptizo could mean other than immersed, but before that, it always meant immersed)

Last time I checked the Bible was before 1400.

Luke 11:38 NET.
(38) The Pharisee was astonished when he saw that Jesus did not first wash his hands before the meal.

Wash is the translation for baptizo in this instance it does not mean that the Pharisee was astonished because Jesus did not completely immerse himself in a ritual cleansing before the meal, he was surprised that Jesus did not cleanse his hands with the washing as prescribed by the Pharisees. In that you poured at least the minimum amount of water over your hands. So there we have biblical support for one mode of baptism, pouring, commonly called effusion.

Then there is:
1 Corinthians 10:1-2 NET.
(1) For I do not want you to be unaware, brothers and sisters, that our fathers were all under the cloud and all passed through the sea,
(2) and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea,

Where the entire nation of Israel (including infants) was baptised as they walked on dry land, the water was all around them, they were totally covered, but not immersed, that was the Egyptians who were immersed. This baptism would be most like sprinkling as any of you who have ever walked through a cloud (fog) can attest.

So there we have two examples, neither of which mean immersion. The one mode of baptism that cannot be shown for sure is immersion, but the symbolism is fine, immersion was an accepted form of ritual bathing or baptism and such that there is certainly no reason to think it is not okay. Of course if one follows the trinitarian formula, one would be immersed three times as you are baptised into each name. But most seem to skip that, we wouldn't want to get legalistic about it.

Now baptism was really quite well understood by the time John came along. The ritual baptism when people converted to Judaism was well known, the convert and his entire family would undergo ritual bathing and the men (any over 8 days old) would be circumcised. The baptism indicates that you are a follower of the beliefs into which you are baptised. Baptism is very strongly linked to being a disciple. This is why John complained at first when Jesus came to him to be baptised. It would be an indication that Jesus was a disciple of John. Of course Jesus' baptism was not John's baptism of repentance, but harkened back to the baptism of Aaron as he was installed as a high priest. Jesus as the new high priest needed to be baptised as part of his installation.

Aaron also figures into the practice of sprinkling for we see him and his sons cleansed by a baptism of blood whereby branches were dipped in the blood and then used to sprinkle them clean.

So multiple ways people were baptised in the Bible and all well established before the New Testament. Ritual washings (baptisms) by sprinkling, pouring, and even immersion were pretty common.

What had no basis in the culture was a man converting as an individual unless he was indeed an individual. If a man had said he wanted to convert, but refused to have his family convert as well, he would not have been accepted, how can a man covert to God, and leave his family outside the covenant? The man was very much the head of the household and if he converted the household was Jewish. The very idea that under the new covenant that now the household was no longer a part of it would have been totally foreign to their entire way of thinking and culture. It would have taken strong clear teachings to exclude such people as the children of believers from the new covenant. Of course if they were excluded, it would have been impossible to explain to Jews how the new covenant was superior to the old because their children were clearly included under the old.

So there, a little of the history of baptism mixed with some of the doctrine.

Marv